IMPORTANT ADDITIONS AT THE END OF THIS POST- ADDED 6/23/23
You know I would love to let sleeping dogs lie, but this EVIL HOUND DOG will not release.
It would be so much more pleasant for me if I could close the book on Barack Hussein Obama. I really do get tired of having to research him and post about him. I hate to even give him the time of day. However, he keeps turning up in the news everywhere. He has more than just his hands in everything that happens in our country. He is so much worse than a bad penny.
He is more like a dangerous and vicious animal loose in the neighborhood. You never know when it will pop up or whether you will survive an encounter with it. This man is a destructive force so unimaginable that it leaves our heads spinning. Now, naturally he is not powerful in and of himself. He is actually a panty waist fairy, but it is the political forces behind him and the SPIRITUAL forces beyond that that empower the movement. He is just a puppet. Hand selected, thoroughly trained, processed and conditioned to perform. He has an assignment, to break down the walls of resistance in the USA. Resistance to the plans, efforts and demands of the New World Order. HE was their instrument of CHANGE in America. While Obama was doing the dirty here in the USA, the United Nations along with all their cronies, corporate heads, elite bloodlines, phony philanthropists and GMOs, have been working outside the USA to lay the groundwork for the complete destruction of ALL NATIONS and the REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. LOL…silly peons believe that means that the poor people with take the wealth from the Rich. LOL.
The truth is, they don’t even need humans anymore. They have come right out and told you that, incase you could not already see what is happening. The Re-CREATION of the our Earth and the RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH is for the benefit of the ELITE.
We have allowed them to take the BEST NATION THAT HAS EVER EXISTED and totally destroy its foundation in a matter of a couple decades. To me that is INSANE!!
JUST ASK YOURSELF, If we did not have the BEST NATION EVER, why in the world is everyone so envious of us? Why, all these years, has the rest of the world sought to imitate us, emulate us or immigrate to our land??
I am not saying we have a better nationality than any other country. We don’t even have a nationality. We have always been a melting pot. Our Nation started with basically two kinds of people: very religious and dedicated believers in the bible and Jesus Christ and the rejects of society; criminals, low born, ill-bred, uneducated, financially endangered.
America has been GREAT because as a NATION we honored the GOD of the BIBLE. We followed HIS COMMANDS. WE VALUED WHAT HE VALUED.
We did not bring idols into our homes, we did not worship ancestors, we did not murder the innocent, we did not cheat, lie and steal, we did not torture people. WE ALWAYS offered aid, assistance, acceptance, charity, grace and kindness. We have always been a giving, caring nation. Does that mean that there were not problems, issues, wrong doings and wrong doers here. NO. Of course among us there are liars, cheats, violent people, law breakers, idol worshipers, whoremongers, sex addicts, drug addicts, etc. BUT AS A NATION, we were dedicated to GOD. God’s judgement comes to individuals, and to NATIONS.
Nations are made up of the sum of the INDIVIDUALS within it. As long as those who followed GOD, out numbered those who did not, be had the BLESSINGS OF GOD upon us. But when we, as a NATION began to accept and condone EVIL we come under GOD’s Judgement.
Abortion, Murder, Injustice injustice in our Legal System, Leaders who are Whoremongers and Child Abusers, DRUG USE, PHARMACEA, USURY (UNREASONALBE LOAN INTEREST), IDOL WORSHIP, STAR WORSHIP, Lasciviousness and Perversion, when parents neglect the role God planned for them and fail to raise their children they children become the prey of every evil spirit, every false teaching, every ungodly practice the devil can throw at them.
This nation has been FUNDAMENTALY AND IRREVERSEABLY TRANSFORMED, due to our own Lust, Gluttony, Pride, Sloth, Envy, Greed, and Wrath.
Multicultural societies — from 19th-century Austria–Hungary to contemporary Iraq, Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda — have a poor record of keeping the peace between competing tribes. They usually end up mired in nihilistic and endemic violence.
The only hope for history’s rare multiracial, multiethnic, and multireligious nations is to adopt a common culture, one that artificially suppresses the natural instinct of humans to identify first with their particular tribe. America, in the logical spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, was exceptional among modern societies in slowly evolving from its original, largely European immigrant population to a 21st-century assimilated, integrated, and intermarried multiracial society, in which religious and racial affiliations were incidental, not essential, to one’s public character and identity.
But such a bold experiment was always tenuous and against the cruel grain of history, in which the hard work of centuries could be easily torn apart by the brief demagoguery of the moment. Unfortunately, President Obama, ever since he first appeared on the national political scene in 2008, has systematically adopted a rhetoric and an agenda that is predicated on dividing up the country according to tribal grievances, in hopes of recalibrating various factions into a majority grievance culture. In large part, he has succeeded politically. But in doing so he has nearly torn the country apart. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to suggest that no other recent president has offered such a level of polarizing and divisive racial bombast.
Most recently, without citing any facts about the circumstances of the police shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana, Barack Obama castigated the police and the citizenry on their culpability for racial disparity and prejudicial violence. “[T]hese fatal shootings are not isolated incidents. They are symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal-justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.” Obama did not yet know the race of the policemen involved (as in the case of Baltimore, the Minnesota shooting involved non-white officers), the circumstances that led to the shootings, or the backgrounds of either the officers or their victims.
Shortly afterwards, twelve Dallas law-enforcement officers were shot, and five of them killed, by a black assassin who declared solidarity with Black Lives Matter and proclaimed his hatred for white law enforcement. That outbreak prompted Obama to take to the podium again to recalibrate his earlier message. This time he amplified his gun-control message, and somewhat delusionally added that the upswing in racial polarization did not imperil national unity — in much the same way that, in years past, he had announced that al-Qaeda was on the run, we were leaving behind a stable Iraq, and ISIS was a jayvee organization. Note the Obama editorial method in the case of police incidents, from Skip Gates to Louisiana and Minnesota: He typically speaks before he has the facts, and when subsequent information calls into question his talking points and theorizing, he never goes back and makes the corrections. Nor does he address facts — from Ferguson to Dallas — that do not fit his political agenda. Finally, a police shooting of an African-American suspect is never an “isolated event,” while the shooting of an officer by a black assassin is isolated and never really thematic of any larger racial pathology.
Once Wright was exposed on video as an uncouth racist and anti-Semite, Obama made the necessary adjustments, as “every week” transmogrified into spotty attendance that explained why Obama was shocked — in Casablanca style — when his spiritual mentor was publicly exposed. In that era of Obamamania, most people shrugged that Obama surely never bought into Wright’s racist and anti-American sermonizing, but simply put up with the venom spewed every week at Trinity United as a political investment, both establishing his radical street credentials and bolstering support among the members of Chicago’s black churches.
But there were plenty of markers in Obama’s own turns of phrase to indicate that racial tranquility is not where we were headed: “Typical white person” and a litany of divisive campaign sloganeering followed (“bring a gun to a knife fight” and “get in their faces,” along with the stereotyping of the white working class of Pennsylvania, who had failed to appreciate Obama’s singular brilliance in the state’s Democratic primary).
Nothing much changed when Obama entered the Oval Office (and why should it, when Obama won record majorities of minority voters in 2008 and would again in 2012?). Attorney General Eric Holder, who almost immediately dropped a likely successful voter-intimidation prosecution against the New Black Panther Party (a group to which the Dallas police assassin at one time claimed affinity), set the new tone of the Obama Justice Department by referring to African-Americans as “my people” and deriding Americans in general as “a nation of cowards.”
‘Punish our enemies’ characterized Obama’s approach to race and bloc voting. (and yet, he is never charged with “Inciting a riot”, hmm, talk about discrimination, favoritism and inequality.
“Punish our enemies” characterized Obama’s approach to race and bloc voting. Each time an explosive racial confrontation appeared on the national scene, Obama — always in his accustomed academic intonations — did his best to exploit the issue. So the Skip Gates farce was leveraged into commentary about police stereotyping and profiling on a national level. The police officer in the Ferguson shooting was eventually exonerated by Obama’s own Justice Department, but not before Obama had already exploited the shooting for political advantage, as part of a larger false narrative of out-of-control racist cops who recklessly shoot black suspects at inordinate rates to the population (rather than in the context of their national incidence of contact with police).
It mattered nothing that the signature line of Ferguson, and the founding motto of Black Lives Matter — “Hands up, don’t shoot” — was exposed as a myth by Eric Holder’s investigators. Right in the midst of the ongoing Trayvon Martin shooting trial, the president of the United States, in carrion fashion, weighed in by speculating whether the son he had never had would have looked like young Martin — not merely risking prejudicing the case (although the newly dubbed “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman was nevertheless exonerated by a jury of his peers), but reminding the country that our racial heritages are the basis of tribal resonance.
Black Lives Matter was founded on a separatist and radical racialism. When an inept Bernie Sanders tried to suggest that “All lives matter,” he was bullied into silence by activists who rushed the podium. “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” became a Black Lives Matter marching slogan last summer in Minnesota — rhetoric amplifying the calls for “Dead Cops” in an earlier New York City march that was in turn logically reified in Dallas by the assassin who “dead copped” white policemen.
When Obama invited Black Lives Matter founders to the White House in February, he praised them by asserting that they were “much better organizers” than he had been at a comparable age, adding that he was “confident that they are going to take America to new heights.” Prior Black Lives Matter marching death chants to police should have been known to Obama at the time.
#share#Every problem has a resolution — but often not a good one. In the case of widely publicized shootings of black suspects by police, regardless of the landscapes involved, police already have proven less likely to respond promptly to inner-city calls for help, rightly or wrongly convinced that they either will be shot at by assassins, or will be forced to use force to protect themselves in a manner that will end their careers, or will hesitate and pay a lethal price for losing deterrence. They likewise assume that their politically appointed high-profile superiors will not support them under media and political pressures, and that society at large has no stomach for a candid conversation — ranging from history to culture to public policy to economics — about the dilemma of young black males, who constitute about 3 to 4 percent of the general population, and are responsible for between 25 and 50 percent of some categories of violent crime.
This spring Obama invited a series of rappers and activists to the White House, whose careers and rhetoric were often violent and divisive. Rapper Rick Ross — on bail pending trial on kidnapping and assault charges — had his ankle bracelet go off at a White House ceremony. Black Lives Matter and Ferguson activist Charles Wade abruptly declined his White House invitation, apparently because he had been recently arrested for pimping and human trafficking. Marquee rapper Kendrick Lamar’s Pimp a Butterfly album cover portrayed black men hoisting champagne bottles and displaying hundred-dollar bills on the White House lawn, in merriment over the corpse of a white judge with his eyes X’d out. Reality mimicked art when Lamar (whose video sets include singing from a vandalized police car) was invited to the White House — or perhaps when five fatally shot policemen on the ground in Dallas superseded Lamar’s image of a prone and eyeless dead judge. Obama, remember, has cited the police-hating Lamar (e.g., “And we hate Popo, wanna kill us dead in the street for sure, nigga”) as his favorite rapper and the dead-judge album “as best album of the year.”
And yet, no one calls him out for encouraging violence and racial hatred, hmm, isn’t that interesting?
As the president has reminded us, words matter. So far in 2016 the shootings of police are up 44 percent over 2015. If celebrating the image of a murdered judge is no impediment to an Oval Office visit and a presidential endorsement, why would the more reckless activists see any real social odium in escalating the hatred? What does one have to do to be disqualified from a White House visit or earn the president’s disapproval? Be under indictment for a felony? Commercialize a picture of a judge’s corpse? That more police may have been targeted in Tennessee, Georgia, and Missouri following the Dallas carnage was the logical result of more than a year of contextualizing Black Lives Matter rhetoric and expressing pseudo-hip adulation of purveyors of anti-police and anti-judicial venom — but always from a safe distance. What does a Secret Service agent think when Lamar, who became a multimillionaire from lyrics like “We hate Popo,” comes to visit the Oval Office?
Obama predicates such no-consequences racial trafficking on four astute assumptions: First, he believes that promoting racial identity, and the more raw the better, is good politics — that it will solidify his new Democratic coalition, energizing grievances to ensure record turnout and bloc voting.
Second, he assumes that most of America is still locked into an anachronistic 1960s dialectic of a white/black binary in the context of continuing bitterness over the racism of Jim Crow — rather than the complex reality of a 21st-century society of multiple races and ethnicities, well into our sixth decade of affirmative action and racial compensation.
Third, Obama assumes that his Ivy League metrosexual and teleprompted image, in wink-and-nod fashion, reassures white liberals that while he flirts with and manipulates the uncouth rhetoric and imagery that the cruder rappers or Rev. Wright routinely peddle, he could not possibly buy into their full program.
Fourth, Obama assumes that his own racial heritage exempts his sloppy rhetoric and actions from the sort of accountability that would doom a non-minority politician who had compiled a similar oeuvre of tolerating racial incendiarism.
Yet when a society reaches a point at which the remedy — honest dialogue and debate — is considered worse than the disease — racial animosity — then chaos and disintegration are the prognoses.
Up to now, the war zones in Chicago and Philadelphia and other inner cities that routinely experience abject killing each week have been largely ignored by progressives, given the nature of black-on-black violence in cities with strict gun-control laws, liberal governments, and ample social-welfare programs. Yet it may be that these recent shootings in Dallas and various other cities, rather than signaling a new dialogue, mark a strategy of exporting gun violence to purported white purveyors of racism. If that happens, then we are back to the 1960s — but worse. Read the online racist comments posted on any major news agency’s accounts of a crime involving race to sense the polarization that has intensified since 2008. Specifically, since Obama took the White House.
#related#Meanwhile, abroad, the world looks not just at the tearing apart of American society under Obama, but at that society’s collective inability to even discuss the catalysts for either Islamic terrorism of the Orlando and San Bernardino sort, or the recent racial violence. When this is collated with seven years of failed reset with Russia, the Iranian deal, the rise of ISIS, the implosion of the Middle East, and the new belligerency in China and North Korea, we may be facing a final six months of a lame-duck presidency the likes of which have never been seen in modern political history.
Perhaps Obama has been prescient after all about American sins and the need for apologizing, contextualization, and reset. A 21st-century society that celebrates separatism and violence and that pardons the venom of Black Lives Matter and its more extreme manifestations, or that exempts Hillary Clinton from all legal accountability, may simply not be able to exercise a position of world moral authority after all.
WASHINGTON, D.C., November 14, 2013
Since the beginning of 2009, there has been a significant shift in the focus of the “war on terror”. Right after 9/11, the American people were told that the terrorists were Islamic radicals and that we needed to go fight them in the Middle East so that they would not come attack us here at home. But now many anti-terrorism reports put out by the government barely mention Islam at all. Instead, many of them are primarily focused on “domestic right-wing extremists”. You may not think of yourself as a “domestic right-wing extremist”, and I certainly do not, but the truth is that patriotic Americans and conservative Christians have been repeatedly labeled as “potential terrorists” since Barack Obama became president. If this had just happened one time, it would be easy to dismiss. Sadly, there has been a steady pattern of this happening over the past several years. Large groups of people that are the heart and soul of this country have been systematically demonized over the past four years. When you consider what history has taught us, it is absolutely chilling to think about what this could eventually lead to.
Just this week another example of this phenomenon surfaced. Wired Magazine was able to obtain a leaked U.S. Army document that contained a chart entitled “Radicalization into Violent Extremism“. This chart identifies the following as characteristics of potential terrorists….
-“Complains about bias”
-“Believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
-“Is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
-“Visits extremist websites/blogs”
-“Establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
-“Attends rallies for extremist causes”
-“Exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
-“Is personally connected with a grievance”
-“Suddenly acquires weapons”
-“Organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
Do any of the above apply to you?
You might think not, but if you complain about the bias of the mainstream media, if you refuse to identify with either major political party, if you visit websites such as this one, or if you believe that your religion is true and that some religions are false then you probably fall into at least one of the categories above.
Let’s look at another example.
The following characteristics of potential terrorists are from a presentation entitled “Terrorism Training For Law Enforcement” which was produced by the State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training (SLATT) program. The SLATT program is funded by grants from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Do any of the following characteristics describe you?….
-“Militia or unorganized militia”
-“General right-wing extremist”
-Has “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
-those that refer to an “Army of God”
More examples of this demonization of patriots and Christians can be found in a DHS report that was released early in 2012 entitled “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008“. That report identified characteristics of those that have committed terrorist attacks in the past and of those that are likely to do so in the future.
Once again, as you are reading this list see if any of these characteristics apply to you….
-“fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
-“suspicious of centralized federal authority”
-“reverent of individual liberty”
-“believe in conspiracy theories”
-“a belief that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack”
-“a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
-“impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
-“insert religion into the political sphere”
-“those who seek to politicize religion”
-“supported political movements for autonomy”
Most Americans would fall into at least one of those categories. That is one of the reasons why these reports are so frightening. Once they identify most of us as “potential terrorists”, they can use all of the “anti-terrorism laws” that have been implemented in recent years against us whenever they want.
Another example of this trend is a Department of Homeland Security report that was published shortly after Barack Obama became president in 2009 entitled “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment“. Among other things, that report claims that a belief in Bible prophecy “could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons.”
The following are some of the other things that particular report was extremely concerned about….
-those concerned about “illegal immigration”
-those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
-“fear of communist regimes and related conspiracy theories”
Once upon a time, it was “anti-American” not to be concerned about the “red menace”.
Now it is “anti-American” if you are concerned about communism.
What a strange world we live in today.
Let’s examine yet another example of this phenomenon.
Shortly after Barack Obama took office, the State of Missouri issued a report entitled “MIAC Strategic Report: The Modern Militia Movement“. That report warned that the following types of people may be potential terrorists….
-those that are against illegal immigration
-those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
-those that have a negative view of the United Nations
-those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
-those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
-those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
Perhaps the most disturbing element of that report was that it identified support of particular political candidates as a threat to national security.
Sadly, the truth is that our most basic freedoms are under attack. Our country is slowly being transformed into a giant prison camp, but most Americans don’t even realize what is happening.
It is like the story of the frog in the kettle. The heat is being turned up so slowly that most people don’t even feel it, but eventually that water will be boiling.
The federal government is pouring billions upon billions of dollars into “anti-terrorism” efforts, but much of that money is being wasted and much of it is being spent on monitoring innocent Americans. The following is from a recent article posted on the Blaze….
A multibillion-dollar information-sharing program created in the aftermath of 9/11 has improperly collected information about innocent Americans and produced little valuable intelligence on terrorism, a Senate report concludes. It portrays an effort that ballooned far beyond anyone’s ability to control.
What began as an attempt to put local, state and federal officials in the same room analyzing the same intelligence has instead cost huge amounts of money for data-mining software, flat screen televisions and, in Arizona, two fully equipped Chevrolet Tahoes that are used for commuting, investigators found.
Instead of focusing on real threats to national security, our government has become absolutely obsessed with watching all of us.
This is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but instead America is being turned into an Orwellian police state.
President Obama’s Unilateral Actions on Immigration
On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced unilateral changes to our immigration system, allowing millions of unlawful immigrants to evade immigration enforcement. These actions are not without cost: they ignore the will of the American people and violate the Constitution, allow criminal aliens to evade the law, make our communities less safe, punish legal immigrants, and encourage more illegal immigration.
Criminal Aliens: The House Judiciary Committee routinely conducts oversight of the Obama Administration’s lax immigration policies that allow criminal aliens to stay in the United States and consequently endanger American communities.
Six years after the germinal United States protests against anti-Black police violence in Ferguson, MO, and months after the 2020 police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, police in mine-resistant vehicles have once again occupied both the streets and mass public attention. In 2014, images from the Ferguson protests—of snipers pointing semi automatic rifles into crowds and officers tear-gassing unarmed civilians—prompted activists and politicians to compare the St. Louis suburb to occupied Gaza, Ukraine, or Iraq.
During the summer of 2020, as the U.S. witnessed its largest public uprisings since the 1960s, police militarization again came under scrutiny. The Department of Homeland Security flew surveillance aircraft over protests in 15 cities, as officers on the ground deployed flash-bang grenades, sound cannons, rubber bullets, and teargas against peaceful demonstrators.
Since protests began, at least 14 local law enforcement agencies in 10 states have received free mine-resistant vehicles built for the U.S. military. In response, some lawmakers have revived efforts to curtail such transfera of military equipment. Reform groups are advocating to demilitarize the police by limiting when and how they can use armored vehicles and camouflage uniforms.
Program Equipment Transfers by Acquisition Value
January 2001 – June 2020
As shown in the above graph, 1033 Program transfers represent a lagging indicator for U.S. military demobilization, particularly after the drawdown from Iraq in 2010. Beginning around 2009, the total value of transfers steadily ramped up as the 1033 Program began funneling more expensive items, like mine-resistant vehicles and helicopters, to law enforcement. The total quantity of items transferred further demonstrates the program’s post-9/11 expansion. I found that the 1033 Program transferred nearly 520,000 individual items to law enforcement after 9/11, compared to nearly 17,000 items before 9/11. The majority of these items were non-controlled equipment such as office supplies.
Obama Militarized the Police and Feminized the Military.
Human Rights Watch
Dec 9, 2014 —After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, the US government authorized the use of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorism suspects in US custody. For years US officials, pointing to Department of Justice memorandums authorizing these techniques, denied that they constituted torture. But many clearly do: International bodies and US courts have repeatedly found that “waterboarding” and other forms of mock execution by asphyxiation constitute torture and are war crimes, Other authorized techniques, including stress positions, hooding during questioning, deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, and use of detainees’ individual phobias (such as fear of dogs) to induce stress, violate the protections afforded all persons in custody – whether combatants or civilians – under the laws of armed conflict and international human rights law, and can amount to torture or “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” Accordingly, the United Nations Committee against Torture and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture have clearly stated that these techniques are torture.
US President Barack Obama has acknowledged that the US used torture as part of the CIA’s post 9/11 interrogation program, and has said that waterboarding constitutes torture. However, many current and former US officials still argue that the “enhanced interrogation techniques” were not torture. The recent release of the summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program has heightened debate around this issue.
The claims of those who argue these techniques did not constitute torture are contradicted by past US statements criticizing other countries for using those same techniques. Below are some examples of such statements, drawn from the US Department of State’s annual Human Rights Reports.
There is a high probability that you have never heard of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 (SMA). Which would comport with not knowing (or caring) about the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (SMMA). Both these laws are critically important and impact your lives directly, so time to get up to speed.
The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act (SMMA) was buried in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act for good reason – because it repealed the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act. The Smith-Mundt Act is also known as the U.S. Information and Education Act, which authorized the State Department to engage in propagandizing foreign countries as a form of public diplomacy.
The SMA established that via the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), Voice of America (VOA), and Radio Free Europe (RFE), the U.S. State Department and Office of Public Affairs were authorized to disseminate propaganda to foreign publics, but were strictly prohibited from releasing that same propaganda in America for public consumption. Put simply, our government was permitted to lie to people in other countries, but not to us here at home.
This prohibition was lifted in 2012, when the SMMA was signed into law by President Obama, allowing the same propaganda disseminated by our government to foreign publics, to now be released in the U.S. for the very first time.
And yes, our government is also now allowed to create propaganda tailored specifically for U.S. public consumption, using any media as it sees fit, while remaining anonymous as the source of the material being reported.
This covert activity by our government’s state department (Public Diplomacy) and Public Affairs department can only occur with corporate media’s full complicity, for which it is well compensated, thanks to the tax dollars appropriated by the SMMA. It means that when our own government’s propaganda is presented to we the American people as news, we are none the wiser that it is scripted, orchestrated, and fully supported with the invisible USBS (United States BullS—) seal of approval. AND THERE MY FRIEND IS YOUR FAKE NEWS, created by a conspiracy between the government and the MEDIA!! That is what complicity means!
The SMMA provides for ample funding for U.S. propaganda programming, incentivizing the corporate-media cartel to partner with the BBG for a new source of revenue to backstop its operational budgets that have been declining due to years of increasingly low ratings, social media competition, loss of relevance, and the public’s growing loss of confidence in media’s reporting veracity regardless of political affiliation.
The SMMA promotes unholy alliances between the U.S. State Department and America’s corporate media that unbinds reporters and news departments from the solemn responsibility to verify information.
Traditional “news,” based on reliable, verifiable fact-based evidence is slowly giving way to “newz” – an ersatz form of information dissemination via broadcasting and/or publishing that enjoys specialized immunity for libel, misinformation, false or fraudulent information, misrepresentation, and anything else previously prohibited by the SMA. If serving a national security purpose(s), the media cartel has a government-sanctioned license to lie.
This certainly explains a lot of newz masquerading as legitimate news these days. Revoking the restrictions once enforced under Smith-Mundt has opened the floodgates on active, former, and retired federal government defense, military, and intelligence agency personnel, hiring on as experts by broadcast and cable news networks, in an attempt to bring gravitas to what amounts to no more than a continuum of guided speculation.
Congress expressed concerns over corrupted information by media while considering the SMMA, but instead of inserting protections, it left the legislation wide open for interpretation.
Consumers of news can’t deny the departure from traditional fact-based news as of 2012. What else explains the growing amount of grossly unsubstantiated and/or blatantly biased reporting, the unprecedented anonymous or hearsay sourcing, or the glaringly irresponsible lack of citing sources at all? Just two decades ago, such unprofessionalism in journalism would have been a career breaker, and rendered complicit news organizations moot.
Generally speaking, however, there remains a stubborn residual belief among Americans that media would never be permitted to knowingly deceive people. There are laws against such abhorrent conduct, aren’t there? Media broadcasters would lose their broadcasting licenses, and publishers would lose their standing as providers of news that is reliable or trustworthy. More importantly, our government is forbidden to propagandize Americans using deception, especially via a free press, right? Wrong.
Grasping the importance of the SMMA in undermining America’s free press, its impact on our governance, culture, and socioeconomic structure as a free society, cannot be understated. Not only is the Fourth Estate utterly compromised relative to the information it does convey, but there is a far greater mission of corruption in the massive amount of need-to-know information it does not convey. Systematically omitting relevant information from the public forum, tailoring narratives and messaging in the guise of legitimate news, redundant scripting across networks, and disallowing nearly all critical debate or analysis, is classic communications manipulation, strategically designed as part of a larger behavior modification agenda.
This is hardly new.
Sophisticated behavior-science methodologies has been in play through media for decades. When you react with far more emotion than reason to news items, without stopping to question any part of that item, you’ve been successfully triggered into a highly specific, predetermined response – a conditioned response.
Triggering itself is a primary means of conditioning, with lots of proven behavior science to inform it. So now its your turn to inform yourself so that you can identify the oft-applied behavior modification techniques being deployed constantly throughout media genres, including social media – such as short, fast-paced segments, redundancy/repetition, subliminal suggestion, cognitive dissonance, projection, nudging – the formidable list of conditioning techniques is worth knowing if you hope to avoid or overcome these traps. Only then will you advance onto recognizing propagandized newz so that you can resolutely reject it. Otherwise drone on.
U.S. President Barack Obama has approved legislation that would consolidate oversight of U.S. nonmilitary broadcasting in the hands of a single chief executive, an overhaul that supporters laud as a much-needed reform but critics warn could endanger journalistic independence.
The legislation, part of a larger bill on U.S. defense spending in 2017 that Obama signed into law on December 23, restructures the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the agency that oversees civilian government broadcasting and media operations such as RFE/RL and Voice of America.
The new law will replace the BBG’s bipartisan board with a presidentially appointed advisory board that will not have decision-making powers. Instead, those powers will be placed in the hands of a CEO appointed by the White House and subject to Senate confirmation.
Proponents of the law, which was spearheaded by Representative Ed Royce (Republican-California) and backed by Obama’s administration, say it will improve performance of U.S. international broadcasting by scrapping a board consisting of members who served part-time and met infrequently.
But critics have raised concerns that it could damage the journalistic integrity of the media outlets under the agency’s umbrella. Such powers in the hands of a White House-appointed CEO, they argue, could impinge on editorial firewalls between the outlets and the government.
The BBG’s current CEO, John Lansing, remains in that position, which was created last year. But opponents of the bill have warned that President-elect Donald Trump –– who has had a contentious relationship with the press — could seek to install a loyalist who would wield the agency as a tool of Trump’s agenda.
Well, ask yourself, if they are worried about TRUMP misusing the power, doesn’t that mean they know there is the capability, and likely are already using it to their advantage?
However, OBAMA was a very influential moving force that pushed for advancements and funding to accommodate them because things were not moving fast enough for the elite.
I know that you think that they are working to find cures for disease. Naturally you believe that because that is what they tell you. However, evidence shows the contrary. They are actually working to CONTROL all life for their purposes. REMEMBER that MAPPING is the final step BEFORE CONTROL in the Scientific Method and CONTROL is ALWASY the final GOAL!
August 9, 2016
At a Glance
- Researchers created a high-resolution map of the human brain, identifying 180 distinct areas in each half of the outermost layer, the cortex.
- The study provides new insights and tools for understanding the roles of specialized brain regions in health and disease.
Our thinking, perception, and ability to understand language are processed in the outermost layer of the brain, the cerebral cortex. Knowing exactly where our senses and perceptions take shape in the brain is important for unraveling how aging, neurological conditions, and psychiatric illnesses affect our health. Scientists have used a variety of techniques to map the brain’s organization over the past century, from examining tissue under a microscope to sophisticated brain imaging methods. However, these measures don’t always reveal the same boundaries and borders in the brain’s landscape.
To get a more holistic view of how the cortex is organized, a team led by Drs. Matthew Glasser and David Van Essen at Washington University in St. Louis combined several measures to create one cohesive brain map. The team collected high quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data from 130 female and 80 male participants of the Human Connectome Project (HCP). The study was funded by the NIH Blueprint for Neuroscience Research. Results were published in Nature on July 20, 2016.
The researchers measured both structural and functional properties of the participants’ brains. Structural MRI scans revealed the thickness of the cortex and the amount of protective sheathing, or myelin, surrounding brain cells. Functional MRIs measured the participants’ brain activity during a resting state and while performing different tasks, such as listening to a story, looking at pictures, or doing math. The scientists used the data to help distinguish brain regions by their specialized roles and determine which regions’ activities were correlated—their “functional connectivity.”
The researchers use a semi-automated approach to combine the data from these multiple measures, focusing on where at least 2 measures changed together across the cortical surface. This approach mapped 180 distinct areas within each half of the cortex—confirming 83 previously known subdivisions and identifying 97 new areas.
Next, the team verified that the brain map created from the averaged data set could be applied to new data. They trained a machine learning classifier to recognize the “fingerprint” of each cortical area. Then they applied the algorithm to 210 additional HCP participants’ brain scans. The classifier found nearly 97% of all 180 brain areas across all 210 subjects. In a few cases, participants’ brain regions weren’t in typical places; however, the data-derived algorithms were still able to successfully identify and map them. As better data are collected with improved neuroimaging methods, the researchers note, some brain regions may turn out to have further subdivisions or be subunits of other areas.
“These new insights and tools should help to explain how our cortex evolved and the roles of its specialized areas in health and disease, and could eventually hold promise for unprecedented precision in brain surgery and clinical work-ups,” says Dr. Bruce Cuthbert, acting director of NIH’s National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).
- Mapping Brain Circuits Involved in Attention
- An Atlas of the Developing Human Brain
- Mutated Genes in Schizophrenia Map to Brain Networks
- Brain Circuits Involved in Compulsive Behaviors
- Brain Wave Synchronization Key to Working Visual Memory
- Brain Basics
References: A multi-modal parcellation of human cerebral cortex. Glasser MF, Coalson TS, Robinson EC, Hacker CD, Harwell J, Yacoub E, Ugurbil K, Andersson J, Beckmann CF, Jenkinson M, Smith SM, Van Essen DC. Nature. 2016 Jul 20. doi: 10.1038/nature18933. [Epub ahead of print]. PMID: 27437579.