Time to Play Hardball with the Media

by

     M. Richard Maxson


      Glenn Greenwald is an American columnist, blogger, and author. He  was named by Foreign Policy Magazine as one of the Top 100 Global Thinkers of 2013. Three of the four books he authored have been New York Times bestsellers. Greenwald is a frequent speaker on college campuses, including Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, the University of Pennsylvania, Brown University, UCLA School of Law, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of Maryland. Greenwald became widely known after The Guardian published the first of a series of reports detailing United States and British global surveillance programmes, based on classified documents disclosed by Edward Snowden. His NSA reporting has won numerous awards around the world, including top investigative journalism prizes from the 2013 Online Journalism Awards.

      So it is of no surprise that at the thirtieth annual Chaos Communication Congress he presented the keynote address. In it he condemned the mainstream media and accused his colleagues of failing to challenge erroneous remarks routinely made by government officials around the globe. He argued that the media establishment at large is guilty of failing significantly with respect to accomplishing its most crucial role: keeping governments in check. He stated, "....the reason why we have a free press is because national security officials routinely lie to the population in order to shield their power and get their agendas advanced.” He added, "journalists tasked with reporting on those issues have all too often been compliant with the blatant lies made by officials from those governments." 

       Using the NSA revelations as a recent example he said, "...I think one of the ways that you can see what it is that we were targeting is in the behavior of the media over the past six months since these revelations have emerged almost entirely without them and despite them. We knew in particular that one of our most formidable adversaries was not simply going to be the intelligence agencies on which we were reporting and who we were trying to expose, but also their most loyal, devoted servants, which calls itself the United States and British media.”

      From there, he went on to cite the example of US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who earlier this year made remarks to Congress that were quickly proved false by documents leaked to Greenwald by Mr. Snowden. The very first National Security Agency document he was shown, Greenwald said, “revealed that the Obama administration had succeeded in convincing court, a secret court, to compel phone companies to turn over to the NSA every single phone record of every single telephone call.” Clapper then “went to the Senate and lied to their faces...which is at least as serious of a crime as anything Edward Snowden is accused of." 

       Greenwald said that the established media continues to reject the notion that government officials spew lies. Snowden’s NSA documents have exposed those these lies on more than one occasion, yet reporters around the world continue to take the word of officials as fact rather than dig from the truth. The US “knows that its only hope for continuing to maintain its regiment of secrecy behind which it engages with radical and corrupt acts is to intimidate and deter and threaten people who are would-be whistleblowers and transparency activists from coming forward and doing what it is that they do by showing them that they’ll be subjected to even the most extreme punishments and there’s nothing that they can do about it,” he said. “And it’s an effective tactic.”

       The wealthy Socialists, who now control everything in the US media. They recently met with Mr. Obama to decide which news will be reported. This quote from the White House sums it all up nicely. “By meeting privately with the people who shape national opinion, the president ensures that his points of view will be represented in the media — even if those points of view aren’t directly attributable to him. The President's private conferences with columnists "serve as an alternative means of shaping the debate in Washington: a private back-channel of genuine sentiment that seeps into the echo-chamber."

      
       Someone once said that "the propagada in the US media makes the old Soviet Union's look like child's play. Those of us that have a world view could not disagree with this statement. We are given a pablum of slanted news stories 24/7. If you have read one newspaper, it seems as if you have read them all. The articles all seem to be the same – the same wire service telling us what to think and what they say is important to know.

       The US Media is not our friend, it is the enemy.  They have been trying to swing national elections since at least the early 1990s. In 2008 and again this year, we saw the media cravenly cover up for the incompetence and deceit of this President. This is on top of the daily barrage of insults that Constitutionalists must endure at the hands of this arrogant bunch of elitist snobs. 

       What can you say about reporting by such well known journalists like Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post and  David Gergen, of CNN, stated for the record "  "This has been a scandal-free administration by and large, and we should appreciate that." Bias is one thing, but this is a mental disorder that some call Democratic Socialism. We  need to be prepared to play hardball with the Pravda press from here on out.

      
       

JFK - Fifty Down and Twenty-Five To Go

by

     M. Richard Maxson


     Seventy-five years, that is when the truth may come out about the Kennedy murder. For those of us that were alive on this fateful day in history remember that the "official" story and documents of the murder were sealed for seventy-five years, supposedly by the family, so that everyone connected to it would, most likely, be dead and therefore could not be held accountable. For those of you who were not born yet, you may never have heard of this before. If you haven't, you have now. .

     Since the fabricated Warren Commission Report was published, many in the public have stepped up to say that they got it wrong in finding that the assassination was the work of a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald. Too many other facts and too many what seemed to be coinsidences almost immediately surfaced. The original report had to be "modified" after James Tague came forward. He not only witnessed the murder he himself was in the line of fire. Then 27, is believed to be the only bystander who was wounded that day in Dallas.( http://news.yahoo.com/video/jfk-assassination-witness-recounts-missed-015912500.html) The original report had three shots fired, three shots hit, but did they? No, says the revised version. This is the birth of the single bullet theory.

     Top forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht calls the Warren Commission's findings "absurd," noting that the "single bullet theory" supported by the commission is inconsistent with Kennedy's head wounds. He calls the killing a "CIA-orchestrated coup d'etat."  It was done with the help of the military/industrial complex for many reasons that I will not go into in this article.
    
      A second commission was formed years later, the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations of 1976-79. They disagreed on whether there may have been a second gunman. But the committee also said there was a high probability of a second shooter, citing acoustic evidence gathered from Dealey Plaza.

       "You have two official investigations conducted by the government reaching contradictory conclusions," says Larry Sabato, who wrote about the impact of the assassination in his book The Kennedy Half-Century.

     John T. Orr is the author of "Analysis of Gunshots in Dealey Plaza." Orr's independent research convinced the FBI to conduct additional testing on JFK evidence as late as 1997. He stated "On April 17, 1995, I mailed a 72-page report on the final results of my research project to Attorney General Janet Reno. It presented what was then, and I believe still is, the only complete visual reconstruction of the gunshots together with all of the evidence supporting it. 

     
     The report proves beyond a reasonable doubt that four shots were fired during the assassination. Oswald fired three shots--the first wounding the President in the back and neck, the second missing the President completely and hitting Governor Connally in the back, chest, and thigh, and the third missing the 25-foot-long limousine entirely. While Oswald was spraying bullets wildly, another shooter, an expert marksman fired a fourth shot, a near-perfect fatal hit at the center of the back of the president's head that exited the right side of the head and struck the governor's right wrist.

     In the report, I recommended a number of things the Justice Department could do to further confirm my analysis. The Department directed the FBI to do only one of those things -- examine important forensic evidence I had pointed out on one of the bullet fragments found in the limousine. It took about five years to complete that examination and report the results.

     In the end, the FBI did only a portion of the fragment examination I had requested, and the results were incomplete and inconclusive. The Department permanently shut down any further investigation of my analysis."

     Another investigator added "I don't think we have a good explanation of the assassination," says Jefferson Morley, creator of the website JFKfacts.org. "The causes of the crime were obscured, and we're still living with the consequences." Crime scene investigator Sherry Feister, author of the book "Enemy of the Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination," insists that the president was shot from the front, not from behind as the commission maintained.
    
      Even Secretary of State John Kerry recently said he believed that Oswald did not act alone.Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently disclosed that the Kennedy family does not believe the lone gunman finding.


     The truth remains elusive, as thousands of pages of documents remain classified by the U.S. government. We may find out in another 25 years, if it's released, if any of us who were there are still alive to remember.

A "Democratic Socialist" Mayor for New York

  by

     M. Richard Maxson

      New Yorkers have elected a new mayor who dedicated himself to the Sandinistas in the 1980s, honeymooned in Cuba in the 1990s (in violation of a U.S. travel ban), and participated in a New York City Council event honoring Zimbabwe's tyrannous Robert Mugabe in 2002?

     In 1988, Bill de Blasio went to Nicaragua to aid the Marxist, Soviet-supported Sandinistas. He came home, as The New York Times put it, with "a vision of the possibilities of unfettered leftist government." Today, 25 years later, New York City Public Advocate de Blasio, has been elected mayor and  remains "very proud" of his radical activities. Mr. de Blasio's class warfare strategy in New York City is directly out of the Marxist playbook. Initially, he denied having once claimed for himself the "democratic socialist". "I am a progressive who believes in an activist approach to government.  The people of this city have chosen a progressive path, and tonight we set forth on it together as one city."

     As Americans brace for the federal takeover of one-sixth of the economy with Obamacare, do we know what's hitting us yet? It's called socialism, and it has increasingly transformed the American political landscape.  We are now at a place where there are legitimately fewer Americans who desire a free republic with a free people than there are those who think the government should give them stuff. There are fewer of us who believe in the value of free exchange and free enterprise. There are fewer of us who do not wish to demonize successful people in order to justify taking from them. Quite unexpectedly, socialism -- or its variant, "democratic socialism" -- has quickly emerged in New York City.  

     Americans are so grievously under-educated about the tenets of Marxism-Leninism. The left's vision of the world is the implicit assumption that high-minded third parties like themselves can make better decisions for other people than those people can make for themselves. The fact that the "new Democratic Socialism" is never "democratic," and that "socialism" destroys free markets. Such ideas, which have entered the Democratic Party mainstream flow from anti-liberty, collectivist roots. The new mayor's policies have less to do with the principles of free people under the U.S. Constitution than with government controls in the old Eastern bloc -- from de Blasio's plans to expand government's role in the economy by controlling prices in the housing market and imposing a higher minimum wage, to degrading the concept of national citizenship by introducing a "Universal City ID card" and allowing driver's licenses for illegal aliens. The promised "fundamentally changing  of America" continues.

Putting America in it's Place

by 

      M. Richard Maxson



     In July of 1944, 730 financial leaders from 44 nations met at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire for a conference in which they recreated the economic world: They established the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. They founded the International Monetary Fund. And they created the World Bank. They established themselves as de facto rulers of the western world. They are the invisible men behind the presidents and prime ministers that REALLY control everything on the planet.

     Now, 67 years later, another conference has just concluded that gives several observers flashbacks to Bretton Woods. A left-wing billionaire did fund two major conferences that start on the same day, in two different locations just a three hours apart by car. Two liberal events packed into one long weekend. The guest list is said to have included former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and former chair of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz  to produce “a lot of high-quality, breakthrough thinking.”

     The conference organizer? None other than George Soros — the internationalist and mega-investor who, in his own words, sees a pressing need to “rearrange the entire financial order.” and no one seems to have noticed. More than 200 did attend, but only 79 speakers are listed on its site – and it already looks like a Soros convention. The rest of the list read like a "Who’s Who" of left-wing organizations and talking heads, including the president of PBS, a senior vice president with American Public Media, an Al Jazeera English executive, the president of the Newspaper Guild – CWA and Washington Post columnist Rob Pegoraro, two commissioners from the FCC, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Bernie Sanders, four Democratic representatives, the head of Columbia University, and assorted left-wing journalist types, from Salon’s Glenn Greenwald to disgraced former MSNBC host David Shuster, who now works for Soros.

      Twenty-two are on Soros-funded INET’s board and three more are INET grantees. Even Soros admits his ties to INET are a problem, saying, “there is a conflict there which I fully recognize.” He claims he stays out of operations. That’s impossible. The whole event is his operation. Nineteen are listed as contributors for another Soros operation – Project Syndicate, which calls itself “the world's pre-eminent source of original op-ed commentaries” reaching “456 leading newspapers in 150 countries.” That’s just the beginning. The emphasis of both conferences is a familiar one to American voters – change. In one conference Soros wanted to begin changing the global economy in one event. In the other, his flunkies want to “Change the world. Change the media.”

      The billionaire  told Australia 's national newspaper "The Australian." " America , as the  centre of the globalized financial markets, was sucking up the savings of  the world. This is now over. The game is out," he said, adding that the  time has come for "a very serious adjustment" in American's consumption  habits. He implied that he was the one with the power to bring this  about."  

     When the anti-American Soros spent $50 million creating the New York City-based Institute for New Economic Thinking(INET), he began a major move against the dollar. The billionaire openly declared his plans to “reform the currency system.” "The dollar needed to take a back seat and end its stint as the world reserve currency." “The big question is whether the U.S. dollar should be the reserve currency; and, in fact, it no longer is,” Soros told Bloomberg. The move against the dollar has gained momentum rapidly. Soros wrote that “the rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system to ensure that they will be active supporters.” “Reorganizing the world order will need to extend beyond the financial system and involve the United Nations, especially membership of the Security Council.” Soros emphasized that point, that this needs to be a global solution, making America one among many.  The Bush-hating billionaire says America is scary “because a declining superpower losing both political and economic dominance but still preserving military supremacy is a dangerous mix.”

     Sadly, those who actually report the news didn’t reporting on Soros or either event. And that’s even though staffers or even executives from Reuters, the Financial Times, NPR, PBS, The Washington Post and other major media outlets are speaking at one event or the other. The Soros empire is silent about these conferences because it isn’t just designed to change global economic rules it is, as Soros puts it, "to put America in its place"


 

WORLD VIEWS

Guest Column

       by  Nadezhda Alexeeva

     In late 2012, The New York Times published a long article where it called on citizens to prepare for a major collapse. It turns out that Barack Obama is prepared to prevent a civil war and the manifestations of totalitarianism. However, the measures were the most striking manifestation of totalitarianism from which the American public has to be rescued. The main job of the Department of Homeland Security is total surveillance over the population of the country. This organization was created after 9/11, and is endowed with nearly unlimited power. Its employees have the right to arrest, physically eliminate, carry a total surveillance of anyone who the U.S. government announces an "enemy of the people" or a terrorist. The Department has numerous informants scattered in all layers of the American society and is allocated enormous funding from the federal budget.

     There are also numerous rumors about special exercises conducted by U.S. intelligence agencies dedicated to suppression of hypothetical popular uprisings. Various situations are modeled. For example, in 1984, the U.S. conducted exercises under the code-name Rex- 84 that worked out the course of action in the event of a political crisis. In response, the Constitution would be suspended, and the absolute power would be transferred to the president, followed by the military suppression of the population.

      This army is mentally ready to start a war against its own population. It was trained for this more than once. There have been numerous exercises on the participation of the armed forces in rebellions suppression. The so-called Zombie Apocalyspe is a meer training session for the military to supress it's citizens.

     We can assume that these are just rumors, but, as the saying goes, there is no smoke without fire. It seems that the news of this kind produces a very negative impression on ordinary Americans, including the growing distrust in the institution of the government.

    Why is this active, vibrant nation that has managed to build cities, factories and a huge empire on the bare, uncharted land, the nation that gave the world so many great artists, writers, and prominent political figures in such a lamentable state? 

     Americans as a nation are going through a difficult period. Their traditional values have been abandoned. The U.S. is likely facing a serious social upheaval due to the Socialization of their school systems. They are the basis for the planned, phased elimination of those rights and freedoms stipulated by the U.S. Constitution and crammed into the consciousness of the American public. If the pace of taking away rights does not keep up with the pace of reformatting(brain-washing) the consciousness of the American population, the crisis in the American. society will worsen.

The End of the US was in 2007

Forward by

     M. Richard Maxson

This blog always promises the TRUTH whatever that may be. many people believe that the old USA is dead (1776-2006). and that we are now living in the Democratic Socialist States of America. They may not be that far off.


This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term.
Don' t just skim over this, it’s not very long, read it slowly and
let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
 
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS
of JOB GROWTH

Remember the day...
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
 
They added to this crisis by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 trillion dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

And who took the third highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?
OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress

So when someone tries to blame Bush.

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

The Shutdown is a Constitutional Responsibility

Guest Column

           by G. Sontag 

     

       Re·spon·si·ble : able to be trusted to do what is right or to do the things that are expected or required : involving important duties, decisions, etc., that you are trusted to do. There are some in Congress who, perhaps by being "educated" by our national school system, forgot the meaning of this word. It is, after all, their reason for being in Washington in the first place.

      James Madison, the 39 other men who signed the Constitution in 1787, wisely provided for separation of powers among the three branches of government. The president would faithfully execute the laws and be commander in chief of the military, but both houses of Congress would have to approve of every penny the government could spend. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity. A right under the Constitution to with hold money from ANY program the choose.

     Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact. You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

      Government shutdown is not exactly a new thing. We have had 17 government shutdowns since the late 1970s. Almost all involved legislative-executive disagreement. So when we hear from Harry Reid or Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply another one of their lies.